Highly-rated young hooker Adam O’Brien, meanwhile, could head out on loan at some point in 2013 in order to gain regular first-team experience.Joint-captains Heath L’Estrange and Matt Diskin are currently blocking his path to the first-team and Cummins said a spell at Dewsbury or a rival Super League club could aid O’Brien’s development.The Bulls coach explained: “At the moment we’ve got three fit hookers, which is probably one too many. Adam could play at Dewsbury or, possibly in mid-season, if everyone’s fit, we could look to get him some Super League experience.“Adam is certainly a massive part of my plans for the future but we need to get him experience and work out what’s best for him next year."

He would be the best 9 at the club IMO. He is above the standard of Ryan Wright. He's represented England at Academy level, I think that he might have captained them, not 100% on that though. He's a tough kid and has played in Super League for the Bulls, also appearing in the Challenge Cup a few times, including a man of the match performance against Halifax almost 2 years ago.

He would be the best 9 at the club IMO. He is above the standard of Ryan Wright. He's represented England at Academy level, I think that he might have captained them, not 100% on that though. He's a tough kid and has played in Super League for the Bulls, also appearing in the Challenge Cup a few times, including a man of the match performance against Halifax almost 2 years ago.

Hood was last year, widely tipped by the chuckle brothers on sky as the future of leeds in the hooking department and a future inetrnational, after just a couple of appearances and few tries. When he came out on loan to us he looked out of his depth, and certainly no better than Tebbs. Johnny Horton came from the Bulls in 2011 (I think), with glowing credentials and a fair bit of SL experience - he hardly got a game before retiring from the championship. No offense, but I don't really see the point in taking on another "promising" player - I think we have enough for now. Still hoping for my "wow" signing. Failing that, Mrs Morrison to join the cheerleaders.

He would be the best 9 at the club IMO. He is above the standard of Ryan Wright. He's represented England at Academy level, I think that he might have captained them, not 100% on that though. He's a tough kid and has played in Super League for the Bulls, also appearing in the Challenge Cup a few times, including a man of the match performance against Halifax almost 2 years ago.

He could well be superman, but I'm with many others on this. The last thing we need is someone coming to play for us and then either moving on to a SL eam when the chance arises or going back to the home team. It just disrupts the team and puts noses out of joint. I'm more than happy with our number 9s for next year.

He could well be superman, but I'm with many others on this. The last thing we need is someone coming to play for us and then either moving on to a SL eam when the chance arises or going back to the home team. It just disrupts the team and puts noses out of joint. I'm more than happy with our number 9s for next year.

Anyone that plays at the Rams, whether on loan or contracted to the club, will jump at the chance of playing Super League if/when the chance arises. I don't see your point there. If the lad improves the team, why would anyone not want him to play?

I'm not saying that he's the best thing since sliced bread, but he's older and more experienced than Hood and also more physically mature, which will mean he's better suited to Championship rugby.

This could be the trouble with a link up.We get players in positions we have or will have a settled part of the team instead of where we need them.Methinks we will not need another 9.

It's not really a problem though is it? If we didn't want one of their players then we would say so and they would go elsewhere. Similarly if we are light in one position and wish to recruit a loanee then we are free to approach any other club as before.

As yet I'm no big fan of the arrangement but let's see how it pans out first shall we?

It's not really a problem though is it? If we didn't want one of their players then we would say so and they would go elsewhere. Similarly if we are light in one position and wish to recruit a loanee then we are free to approach any other club as before.

As yet I'm no big fan of the arrangement but let's see how it pans out first shall we?

If Cummins is going to influence who GM wishes to take on loan it IS a problem. We don't need any more hookers, however good they are. If players are given the impression that they could lose their place whenever Cummins fancies trying out one of his rookies in the championship it is hardly conducive to team spirit. Now if GM lets it be known in the press that we're still short of a few quality backs, and we are thinking of taking Crookes or Platt off them (doubt they'll figure much for the bulls), that would be different.

. Now if GM lets it be known in the press that we're still short of a few quality backs, and we are thinking of taking Crookes or Platt off them (doubt they'll figure much for the bulls), that would be different.

If Cummins is going to influence who GM wishes to take on loan it IS a problem. We don't need any more hookers, however good they are. If players are given the impression that they could lose their place whenever Cummins fancies trying out one of his rookies in the championship it is hardly conducive to team spirit.

O'Brien being "sent" to Dewsbury doesn't mean he has to play. If Glenn's happy with his hooking options then he can turn the offer down.

But I believe that all of our players should take to the field thinking that if they don't play well they could lose their place, and I can't see how a depth of options in any position to help reinforce this mindset could be seen as a bad thing.

O'Brien being "sent" to Dewsbury doesn't mean he has to play. If Glenn's happy with his hooking options then he can turn the offer down.

But I believe that all of our players should take to the field thinking that if they don't play well they could lose their place, and I can't see how a depth of options in any position to help reinforce this mindset could be seen as a bad thing.

A philosophy which worked well for Wozzer didn't it. Sorry Tom but there's a fine line between knowing you are not indispensible, and playing with fear because you feel insecure. Bringing in players to fill positions that need strengthening is one thing, but bringing them in simply because we can, would be wrong IMO.

GOR - Can we have a list of the available players who you would regard as a 'WOW' signing.

Ahhh - that's just your subtle way of saying that there aren't going to be any then ? Like the wife, I'm used to disappointment, so I guess I'll have to accept that. So who cares that while my mates at Fev, Fax and Batley are getting ipads and xboxes to go with their season tickets, I'm getting a bag of walnuts, a handful of tangerines and a smokers set like usual. The walnuts are courtesy of santa jowett and the tangerines could still turn out to be lemons (just joking Wilsden) but I'll live with that. To be fair, we haven't had many wow signings over the years - John Langley, Eddie Rombo, Les Holliday and Francis Maloney spring to mind, but not many others. When JC was announced as GM's first signing, I confess I did say "wow" though.

GOR - No i'm not trying to say that at all. As you know, all the 'WOW' players are in short supply and will always migrate to the clubs who
battle with each other in the financial stakes. As MS has said, the Rams will not and are not able to do this and the club will work within a Budget
agreed and approved. The squad is not complete yet but you may not approve of the remaining members - whoever they are!